Hesson, McCullum, Edgar

[hendrix]

Early on in Hesson's tenure I remember during the t20 world cup being extremely unimpressed with some batting order decisions (I think Taylor batted at 6 at one stage, per ehemple).

But since then there have been a few selection stunners:

Tests:
- Mark Craig out of the blue (I think his first class average was around 45)
- Anderson and Neesham (conservative selectors may not have picked them)
- McCullum to 5 in Test cricket (debatable given the lack of opening options, but he's played some great innings)
- McCullum back to opening in Asia

ODIs:
- Luke Ronchi
- Trent Boult for the world cup, unproven in ODIs
- McCullum back to opening
- Giving Anderson a clear, defined role
- Ensuring Vettori was fit and ready, and then picking him.

A word for Bond and the bowling plan team, as well excellent captaincy by McCullum. Some notable bowling plans:
- Sangakkarra targeted by Boult (tbf pretty regulation dismissals)
- Bringing back Southee once Vettori had made the break through vs England
- Clarke caught at short cover at Eden Park

Has not yet worked:
- ATG Tom Latham has not yet fired in ODIs
- Milne hasn't taken many wickets, although he did look likely in the SL series.

 

[Prince EWS]

Elliott's ODI recall has worked out really well so far too, although given that was done purely with the World Cup in mind, the ultimate success of it is still TBA.

I'd argue that picking Fulton is Tests sort of worked too. I know he wasn't great and they probably hung onto him slightly too long, but given the scarcity of good opening options, the fact that he contributed as much as he did early on really is a tick IMO.

 

[hendrix]

Elliott's ODI recall has worked out really well so far too, although given that was done purely with the World Cup in mind, the ultimate success of it is still TBA.

I'd argue that picking Fulton is Tests sort of worked too. I know he wasn't great and they probably hung onto him slightly too long, but given the scarcity of good opening options, the fact that he contributed as much as he did early on really is a tick IMO.

yeah, agree with both of those.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Bringing Boult in was a masterstroke. I'm still not convinced about continuing to pick Milne but now I have faith.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not sure the continued faith in Rutherford has been justified and I think Watling has deserved more chances than he's received in ODIs.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah Sodhi, Rutherford and possibly even Dougeh may have received ablittle too much of a grace period.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I'm all for giving players an extended chance to solidify their position in the team. I lived through the revolving door of early-mid 90s England selection policy and that's definitely not a good idea. I just think that one score in the first of 16 Tests is too long a period of backing the same horse.

 

[Athlai]

Im definitely behind giving someone the summer ( or winter) but finding your feet over the course of a few seasons isnt on.

 

[hendrix]

Not sure the continued faith in Rutherford has been justified and I think Watling has deserved more chances than he's received in ODIs.

I agree but realistically the only place in the current ODI team for Watling would be Elliott's spot.

 

[Bahnz]

Craig wasn't truly out of the blue. He'd had a solid season for Otago last year, and to be perfectly frank once Jeets stood down there were really no other options. Still, they stuck with him when everyone on here was clamouring for his axing during the first half of the Pakistan series, so you've gotta give them credit for that.

Ronchi for ODI's was also a pretty straight forward selection, given his pedigree and form. They also totally ****ed up his introduction to the ODI side by batting him at the top. Still, given how rocky his start was, it was impressive that they hung onto him for as long as they did, and obviously they've been justified in doing so.

Basically, what I've been most impressed with this bunch is their willingness to persist with players even if things don't initially look like they're going to plan. That's a real strength of New Zealand's support staff relative to countries like England.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I agree but realistically the only place in the current ODI team for Watling would be Elliott's spot.

To play Watling as a keeper-bat you'd have to replace Elliott with Neesham to leave us with our delicious icing at 6 and 7 while not losing a bowling option. He can't play as an ODI bat if he's not keeping imo.

 

[Grasshopper]

Drawing a line in the sand and not indulging Ryder earns them another big tick, imo.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Drawing a line in the sand and not indulging Ryder earns them another big tick, imo.

Disagree. Ryder's been in and out so often it's like watching a live action hokey cokey. It hardly makes it clear to the employee where the expected line is. They may have things right now, but it was achieved the hard way and it could perhaps be thought that the fact they've been unable to get anything out of a talent like Ryder is to the detriment of the team and thus the opposite of what you're saying.

The case of Ryder finds itself in the netherregions between tick and cross. The perineum of decision making.

 

[Grasshopper]

Disagree. Ryder's been in and out so often it's like watching a live action hokey cokey. It hardly makes it clear to the employee where the expected line is. They may have things right now, but it was achieved the hard way and it could perhaps be thought that the fact they've been unable to get anything out of a talent like Ryder is to the detriment of the team and thus the opposite of what you're saying.

The case of Ryder finds itself in the netherregions between tick and cross. The perineum of decision making.

Perhaps. Or maybe they followed the All Blacks' example and introduced a "No Dickheads" rule.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Perhaps. Or maybe they followed the All Blacks' example and introduced a "No Dickheads" rule.

Jesse's been a delight everytime I've met him. The "No Dickheads" thing for the ABs is complete bollocks, unless - for example - you think a guy who shoots fur seals for larks isn't just a little bit of a dickhead. They didn't exactly cut Zac Guildford off cleanly either. Very selective with their use of that rule or it (more likely) doesn't really exist all at and is all part of the construction of aura.

 

[SuperMurali]

The No Dickheads Rule is a construct used to bash rival teams that picked a wanker. And then if you include someone who meets the dickhead definition, then you talk about how good your team environment is which will transform their character.


The biggest achievement of Team McCullum/Hesson is getting the country to be proud of our cricket again

 

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, I probably should've added one of those winky emoticons...

 

[Dan]

Yeah, from all accounts Jesse is a lovely guy, but is fed up with the **** he cops from the media when he so much as breathes the wrong way.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, from all accounts Jesse is a lovely guy, but is fed up with the **** he cops from the media when he so much as breathes the wrong way.

Sounds like he's better off out of the NZ side for now, then. And they're definitely better off without him, so it's win-win.

 

[Zinzan]

Drawing a line in the sand and not indulging Ryder earns them another big tick, imo.

I agree with you, I think previous regimes coupled with Jesse's world-class potential allowed far too much ambiguity in terms of how many chances the guy was going to get.

At least this regime made it clear they were giving Jesse that one more chance towards the end of last year & made the line clear. The fact that he didn't have the heart/discipline/guts/respect/desire/maturity/(fill in the blanks) to get his ass along for those games he'd agreed to play for Otago, was down to him. And you're 100% correct - that was the line.

The fact remains, he's actually the opposite to what this McHesson team stands for in terms of the culture; Guts, determination, hard-work, desire, prepared to sacrifice, team work & above all the synergy in that no individual is greater than the team.